Question For The Christians

[Guest Spinoza]

The Perennial Philosophy is primarily concerned with the One, divine Reality substantial to the manifold world of things and lives and minds.

But the nature of this one Reality is such that it cannot be directly and immediately apprehended except by those who have chosen to fulfill certain conditions,

making themselves loving, pure in heart, and poor in spirit. Why should this be so ? We do not know. - Aldous Huxley

 

Reading this again, thanks to Antlerman .....

 

http://the-kingdom-of-god-is-within-you.blogspot.com/2010/05/perennial-philosophy-aldous-huxley.html

[Kuroikaze]

Sorry.... by Militant Atheists I was referring to the people on this Forum who say F$%k Off, and You're full of sh&t - no matter what i say ....

 

Ok...but you mentioned specific people, (Dawkins and Hitchins) and lumped these people in as part of them, since I am also a fan of both it seemed to lump anyone who agrees with them into that same group, then it became clear you really don't even know that much about the things that Dawkins or Hitchins actually say. Personally I can think of quite a few atheists who are more extreme than either one of them so why they have become the poster boys for so called "militant atheism" I do not know, perhaps because the others I mentioned are less well known.

 

As far as the rest, some people are going to say fuck off, I do not see how that makes them a disciple of Dawkins, as I have never heard him say such to anyone, but you just have to have tougher skin, everyone has a right to say what they are gonna say, if they have a point deal with it, if they are idiots ignore it.

 

You seem like a decent person, though admittedly my initial interactions with you might have led me to conclude differently, I came close to telling you to fuck off myself, a few years ago when I was still a lot more angry about my deconversion, I probably would have. Intentional or not, some of you posts came off a bit preachy, and for more recent deconverts they tend to see nothing but red, I know I did.

 

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. -

Carl Sagan - My hero.

 

I like Carl Sagan, and from reading the rest of his work I do not think he was intended to imply by this that HE personally referred to the physical laws as god, just that he would not argue with a person who does. However, if you are correct and he actually did mean this, then it simply means he was wrong on this count as far as I am concerned. Brilliant thought he was, he was still just a man and capable of mistakes, as I am sure he would have pointed out himself. While I am willing to learn from anyone I would not be willing to sell my own intellect over to any one person or set of ideals without question, I learned the err of those ways after spending 6 years as a fundamentalist

 

Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.

Baruch Spinoza

 

Sorry, I find this quote to be nothing more that sophistry, it is stated almost as a tautology, but there is no reason to belief it is actually true. Moreover I find it rather suspect as a philosophical statement, terms are vague and undefined. Perhaps the rest of his philosophy goes on to define exactly what he thinks god is, but again, I wonder why the need to use this term if one is ONLY referring to natural process and nothing more. I suspect, given the time Spinoza lived that it may be a bit of a stretch to call him an atheist, just as it would also be a stretch to call Hobbs and Atheist, even though his philosophy is primarily secular in nature. Doing a bit of research it seems he may have been a Panentheist, which is slightly different than a Pantheist that would say that god and nature are interchangeable forms

 

None of this is necessarily bad of course, Thomas Paine is one of my favorite authors despite the fact that he was a Deist, as he wrote an amazing book called "Age of Reason" in which he wrote a vitriolic attack on organized religion, at a time when such things were not done. Despite the fact that I like his writing very much, I still reserve the right to disagree with him on things, I honestly don't see why you would marry your self so closely to the views of a man who lived nearly 400 years ago, hell I don't see why anyone would do this for someone still alive.

 

I'll study ideas, but ultimately I make up my own mind, and would recommend others do the same.

[Kuroikaze]

Not one bit of evidence to back up any of your assertions. I will look forward to you providing some..any.

 

Talking about yourself again I see.

[Guest Spinoza]

 

 

I'll study ideas, but ultimately I make up my own mind, and would recommend others do the same.

 

Exactly. You can only find it yourself.

 

You don't need anybody or anything to show you the Way. Especially not me.

[centauri]

Which is why Christianity is not based on absolute morality, but on theological relativism.

The death of Jesus doesn’t do anything to cover sin.

There is no provision in God’s law for a human to serve as a sin sacrifice.

Such a sacrifice is illegal and believing it do be otherwise is rebellion against God.

 

 

Where is it stated in the Law that God cannot take the penalty for sin upon himself. If it were merely a human sacrifice, you would be right; however, Jesus was no mere human as no mere human could do what Jesus did in his miracles, including his resurrection.

Humans can perform miracles with God’s help, as Moses showed many times.

Moses wasn’t God nor did Jesus raise himself, God did it.

Jesus was supposed to be a sin sacrifice, specifically an animal sin sacrifice.

The holy law of God is supposed to represent absolute morality and does not allow for modifications, additions, or subtractions.

The sacrifice of Jesus was illegal and does not atone for anything.

Faced with this dilemma, you toss aside the holy law when it gets in the way of your revisionist theology, where you assert that Jesus was special and didn’t have to conform or abide to any of the regulations set down by God regarding proper sin sacrifices.

Special pleading is a characteristic of Christian revisionist theology, which makes up special rules for Jesus in order to circumvent the heresy it engages in.

 

Nor did Jesus claim to be a mere man. He claimed deity (John 8:58 & elsewhere) and the same essence as God the Father (John 10:30).

This is more special pleading, rationalizing that Jesus was God and can do whatever he wants.

According to scripture, the Hebrew deity isn’t a man or a son of man, which renders human claims to deity as falsehood.

Jesus also claimed to have a God in John 20:17, Rev 3:12, and in other verses, so he’s giving convoluted information by claiming to be God.

Jesus also stated that the law was to be fully binding until heaven and earth passed away.

 

centauri:

That’s Christian mythology.

Jesus undermined parts of the law, made false prophecy, and claimed to be something he wasn’t.

 

 

2 Corinthians 5:21. Which parts of the Law did he undermine and where is your evidence for that assertion?

You’re using New Testament scripture to claim Jesus was sinless.

That’s a form of circular logic and does nothing to resolve the problems of Jesus undermining the law, making false prophecy, and claiming to be something he wasn’t.

Jesus undermined the dietary laws in Mark 7, and this evidence has been provided before.

 

 

centauri:

More Christian mythology.

Jesus undermined parts of the law and such behavior doesn’t fulfill anything.

 

 

Matthew 5:17-18; Romans 10:4Galatians 3:23-25, & elsewhere. Same question as above.

Doesn’t solve the problem.

Jesus contradicted his own edict given in Matt 5:17-18 when he undermined the dietary laws(Lev 11) in Mark 7.

Romans 10:4 is revisionist false theology if the Hebrew scriptures are to be taken seriously.

Where do those scriptures state that an expected king messiah would be the end of the law?

 

centauri:

This is Christian mythology rooted in relativism and wishful thinking.

Jesus did not fulfill the law and has no qualifications to make an invalid and illegal sacrifice.

Such improper actions are in themselves sinful.

 

 

Evidence please...

The evidence is found in God’s law, Book of Leviticus.

Animal sin sacrifices are not allowed to use humans or human hybrids.

Animal sin sacrifices are to be unblemished, which Jesus was not.

Animal sin sacrifices are to be presided over by a Levitical priest, which Jesus was not.

Improper sacrifices are not condoned by God and pretending to be a Levitical priest is a death penalty offense.

 

centauri:

Jesus didn’t even fulfill the duties of an expected king messiah.

Teaching against parts of the law, as Jesus did, does not make anyone righteous.

Humans are not valid sin sacrifices according to God’s law, which Christianity ignores when it gets in the way of their subjective wishful thing.

 

 

More evidence required to back your assertions...

Provided throughout this post, read it.

 

 

centauri:

Jesus had no authority or legitimacy to circumvent God’s law.

The words of a messianic failure don’t mean anything in terms of salvation.

God repeatedly warned his people not to be seduced by false teachers and wonder workers.

An expected king messiah was to lead people into great compliance with the law.

Jesus did no such thing and his modern followers mock the very God they claim to adore.

 

 

Not one bit of evidence to back up any of your assertions. I will look forward to you providing some..any.

Specific evidence has been provided on this forum over the years in other threads, but since you like to disappear for long periods of time, you play the game of coming back months later, pretending that all of this has never been addressed before.

That long gap gives you the opportunity to start the whole charade all over again as if nothing ever happened.

So here we go again:

Jesus never sat on the throne of David nor ushered in the promised messianic era. (Jer 23:5-6)

Jesus never led the people into great compliance with the law, as the job required. (Ezek 37:24)

God warned his people not to be seduced by false teachers. (Deut 13 and 18)

The law was not to be tampered with. (Deut 4:2).

[LNC]

The idea of someone being guilty for the sins of another is not a foreign or unjust concept.

 

It may not be foreign to us, but it is unjust.

Demonstrably so. For instance, anything human (except for the life of Jesus Christ) falls short of God's perfection. Care to disagree with this? This is a foundational, basic tenet of Christianity.

Can God act imperfectly or unjustly? No! Can God be anything less than perfectly wise, perfectly holy, perfectly pure, perfectly good or perfectly anything? Again, No!

Yet, according to your personal theology, He can judge using a demonstrably imperfect standard and still be perfectly just.

R-e-a-l-l-y?

 

I think your premise that God can judge imperfectly is false. God does not judge people ultimately based upon Adam's sin as we accumulate enough of our own by which to be judged.

 

All human models of justice are inherently unjust.

Especially so, when measured against the perfect standard of justice that your God is supposed to embody. Shouldn't we aspire to be just and fair and impartial, like God? Not the other way round.

Yet, you are arguing the opposite. You cite flawed models of human justice and then claim them as being fit for God to use. I don't think so! That which is perfect should not emulate or take it's cue from imperfection. It should be demonstrably superior. Where is the Biblical precedent for God dropping His standards? Ok, He became a man, but at no point in His time on Earth did He ever, ever, EVER fall into sinful imperfection. Care to disagree with that, either?

 

If God truly is the embodiment of perfection, then He wouldn't sully His hands by applying something so debased, unfair and biased as human justice - as you claim He can 'legitimately' do.

Sorry! But you can't have it both ways. Either God is perfect and stays that way, or He isn't and therefore He never was. The God/man you champion as the one and only way to deflect the Father's JUST and RIGHTEOUS wrath was perfect, no? So why then does his Dad choose (by your line of argument) to act imperfectly? Hmmmm....?

Congratulations!

Your argument has succeeded in bringing God down to the human level of us sinners. Is that what you really wanted to say? It's ok for Him to operate by our standards and still call Himself a holy, pure and just God, is it?

If the standard of human justice is good enough for God to operate by, how does this demonstrate that He his morally and ethically superior to us and therefore fit to be our judge? I note that Abraham asked him to His face, "Will not the judge of all the Earth do right?" Right as in perfectly right, fair, impartial and just. Did Abraham ask, "Will not the judge of all the Earth pass judgement as mere men do?"

 

Just because human judgments are not as perfect as God's judgments does not make human models of justice inherently unjust. Less just does not equal unjust. Also, because a system may not be carried out justly does not make the system unjust, it simply makes those who are carrying out the execution of justice unjust when they act contrary to the standard. The human system is built upon a system in which justice is supposed to be blind (fair and impartial), is that not true? It is written into the laws of our lands. I don't know where I have said that God should emulate human systems, so your argument is flawed. Flawed arguments generally lead to fallacious conclusions, as is the case with yours.

 

Nations are judged to be guilty for the actions of their leaders all the time and the people all suffer the consequences.

 

An example of human, not divine justice. Just because we do it, that does not make it right. Nor just, nor fair, nor impartial. Often these sanctions are applied in the full knowledge that innocent parties (those not responsible for the actions of their leaders) will suffer. Sanctions are a means of political and diplomatic leverage, enacted in the clear knowledge that innocents may well suffer. This kind of 'collateral damage' is regretted by often unavoidable. Such 'clear' knowledge confirms that sanctions are not a valid example of perfect justice. As such, God cannot bind himself to such a ruling. Sanctions are examples of human models of justice, not divine ones.

 

You have to show me where innocent people suffer in God's economy. You have already admitted that Jesus was the only sinless person to live, so how do you come up with the idea that God does not exercise divine justice perfectly? How are you able to argue that God is not an impartial judge? I don't think you have made your case.

 

We put sanctions on nations for the actions of their rogue leaders which affects all the people (although, generally the leaders suffer least because they have all the power and money).

 

Yes, but these sanctions are demonstrably unjust. They must be so, because they affect the innocent many for the crimes of the few. This injustice clearly demonstrates their imperfection. Yet, because it's the imperfect, done thing, here on Earth, it's ok for a perfect God to follow this example? Which standard will He apply, when it's time to for Him to judge Satan and the rebellious angels? His own, unchanging and perfect standard? A human standard? A third and different standard that is fit for the purpose of judging immortal, angelic beings? How many standards does He operate by? I thought that the triune God was the embodiment of perfect unity. So why all these different standards when only one should operate? I'm confused! Can you tell?

 

Why are sanctions demonstrably unjust? You say this, but you have not made your case? Now, the fact that some tyrant chooses to let the population starve because sanctions are in place is not the fault of the sanctioning body, it is the fault of the tyrant who is trying to starve his people. I think you have a naive understanding of international affairs. The people of North Korea aren't starving because sanctions have been placed upon that country, they are starving because Kim Jong Il is repressing the people's freedom to support themselves, something they could easily do without his repressive regime prohibiting it. In other words, people suffer in this world because people are sinful and make sinful decisions. I hope that understanding this will alleviate your confusion.

 

Families also suffer when a member is punished. If a father or mother commits a crime, the family suffers the loss of that family member and the support that he or she provides.

Ditto. Agreed, that parents are responsible for their actions and their children may well suffer because of them. However, the point you are making here is one of responsibility, not justice. If the parents break a law, who is to say that this law is a just one? In fact, I'd go so far to say that any human law which any set of parents might be under, will be unjust, because all human laws fall short of the perfect justice found only in God. So, once again, your example does not stand up when you compare human standards to divine ones.

 

Parents are under laws that prohibit murder, child abuse, theft and all sorts of other immoral behavior, would you say that those laws are unjust? They are human laws after all. Yes, they are based upon God's moral standards, but the laws themselves were written in human legislative bodies by humans.

 

Even in sports, when a hockey player commits a penalty, the team suffers. Ditto the above. Individual misdemeanor resulting in group punishment. Not a just measure. A human measure, yes. Fit for God to use? Think again!

 

So, you would take away all rules in team sports? I think that greater chaos would ensue than already does in the typical hockey game.

 

So, I'm not sure where you get your sensibilities on this topic, but they don't seem to be in keeping with what we generally know and experience.

 

What we generally know and experience helps us understand God's justice? I thought that's what the Bible and the Holy Spirit were for? Since when did everyday knowledge and experience become a reliable way of knowing God?

No sir! As I said before, all examples of human justice fall short of God's perfect standard. Therefore, to use them to formulate a working argument that describes God's nature and behavior is at best, unworkable and at worst, misleading.

 

Yes, the Bible and the Holy Spirit inform our consciences, which in turn, inform our laws. So, when laws are justly administered, it gives us a glimpse of what God's justice is like. But you don't seem to understand the order of events, or don't want to represent it as I have explained it. Yes, human justice falls short of God's perfect standard, but that doesn't mean that it can't give us a glimpse of what God's perfect standard could be and should be like. If we are made in the image of God, then we will reflect that image, albeit, imperfectly. Yet, still we can get an understanding of what things should be like. I think you understand this, but are purposefully misrepresenting what I am saying. I think you are smarter than to be doing this ignorantly.

 

There are two views on Adam's sin: one is that he was the legal representative of the rest of humanity who would follow and his guilt is passed onto us; the second is that we shared in his sin in that we receive our souls from a descendant of Adam. In either case, I see nothing unjust about that.

 

You see nothing at all unjust in either view of Adam's sin?

 

So, let me see if I've got this right.

 

You cite current examples of human INjustice and then retroactively apply them to a Bronze-Age narrative about a mythical First Man, who's existence is a logical necessity only if a historical Jesus is the only way to deflect the Father's wrath? Yes?

You claim that because some humans think it is lawful and just to apportion punishment to the many for actions of the one, that this sets an acceptable precedent for a perfectly just God to employ? Yes?

You promote the demonstrably unjust notion that those who did not commit a crime, who knew nothing about it and who could not have carried out, should be punished because of the flawed concept of group responsibility for individual action? Yes?

How am I doing so far?

 

Here is a good example of your purposeful misrepresentation. No further comment needed.

 

In this case, God provides a simple way to have the guilt expunged. It is our fault if we pass on that offer, isn't it? If you don't believe this to be true, explain why.

 

No. According to you, God hold innocent billions guilty for the sole misdemeanor of one.

 

Can you cite any human examples of how it is perfectly just and lawful to do this?

 

You can't, can you?

There are no examples in, 'what we generally know and experience' that can demonstrate perfect justice. Perfect justice does not exist in human life. That is another basic tenet of Christianity. Care to argue against that?

My friend, the only possible place you would claim to find a description of perfect justice would be in the pages of the Bible. So, if you invoke this book (and not any human examples) you are engaging in a circular argument, using the so-called perfect justice seen in the Bible to argue for God's so-called perfect justice - as described in the Bible.

 

Also, if you're puzzled as to why I'm focusing so tightly on perfection - that's what you claim your God to be.

If you respond by saying that you don't have to demonstrate God's perfect justice, fine. We both know that you can't do that. You might say that all you have to do is demonstrate that God's justice is fit for purpose. That is, fair and impartial enough for the job, but not necessarily or recognizably perfectly fair and impartial by us. Then how have you proven anything? If God claims to be perfectly just, but this cannot be demonstrated, are we supposed to just accept this by faith? Or just because you say so?

 

In case you hadn't noticed, you've touched a raw nerve!

 

Since you have adopted children, let me put a hypothetical to you.

Let's suppose that these kids were your natural children. Would it be just and fair (even in human terms) for you to set a regulation for one child while the other is in your wife's womb, then when the older one breaks it, wait until the younger one is born and then punish the babe for the other's misdemeanor? Would it also have been fair not to tell the older what you had planned?

Well?

 

If I believed in such things, I'd say that the innocence of my unborn sister accuses you from beyond the grave. Shame on you!

 

BAA.

 

Yet again, purposeful misrepresentation of not only what I have said, but what the Bible says. Where do you get the idea that Adam's sin or ours is a misdemeanor? You haven't demonstrated that God executes his justice imperfectly, only that man does, and I don't argue that point. You have not given any evidence that innocent people suffer under God's judgment unjustly; you've only asserted as much. I don't see a real argument in all that you've written, just empty complaints.

 

LNC

[bdp]

I don't see a real argument in all that you've written, just empty complaints.

 

 

 

god-bot sees only what it's programmed to see.

[LNC]

Yet another version of "you didn't have enough faith." Yawn. Another loophole for your invisible friend.

 

 

I don't know that it is a matter of degrees of faith, but rather, existence of faith and the object of the faith. We can have great amounts of faith in that which is not worthy of faith and have a little faith in that which is worthy. I would choose the latter over the former.

 

You're doing it wrong. Please stop presenting morality as a false dichotomy (i.e. God-sourced morality versus complete baby-eating pandemonium).

 

People don't need an invisible man threatening them with hellfire to act good. There is plenty of evidence in evolution to show that groups seeking a common good survive. And to assume your version of religious morality is universal is pure conceit.

 

Please give me a rational basis for objective morality apart from God if you care to defend your false dichotomy claim. Evolution cannot produce morality, at best, only different behavior. However, evolution cannot inform us as to whether that behavior is moral or not, it just is.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Ah. You do trust him because of experience, do you?

 

He has proven himself trustworthy to you, and you have evidence that supports that. Like what? You saw him? He talked to you and help you out of a tough spot? You know for sure it was Jesus and not some other being that just pretended? Can you prove the voice or vision wasn't created by some super-intelligent alien from another planet?

 

It's too sad that Jesus manages to prove himself trustworthy to only some people. I needed him. He didn't show. He didn't say a word. I didn't get any help. No one in my close family got the help. So again, it's sad that he picks and chooses who he will prove himself to.

 

 

There are many reasons to trust Jesus. I can't speak to your situation as I don't know you or your situation. As for me, I have been given sufficient evidence of Jesus' faithfulness.

 

I was Christian for 30 years. For 10 years we were in a situation where we needed the comfort and help. It eventually led to a huge disappointment in God's promise to "be there." How can I chose to trust his Son when his Son doesn't do what he promised? I learned to trust reality.

 

 

Again, I can't speak to your situation as I don't know enough to do so. I'm sorry that you felt this level of disappointment. All I know is that Jesus has been faithful to me and to those whom I know who have trusted in him.

 

That's the thing, I wasn't rebellious. I didn't actively, intentionally, or openly rebel against God or Jesus. My faith, trust, in them disappeared. It's gone because they didn't do shit. I never saw Jesus. I never heard Jesus's voice. I never saw God in action in any shape or form. I did however see, hear, and experience reality and natural events. I trust the Universe to be what it is, and nothing more or less. Why are Christians so rebellious against reality?

 

I don't know of any who haven't rebelled against Jesus, me included. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you weren't rebellious. Apparently, you have since rebelled if your words here are accurate and I'm understanding them the way that I read them. I also know that those whom I know who have trusted in Jesus (and I don't know you personally, so this is no comment on you) have seen Jesus work in their lives. When you say that you trust the universe, what do you mean by that? Do you trust it to work on your behalf or just to act according to natural laws? If the latter, then I don't know of any Christians who would rebel against that reality, me included.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I tried to make a distinction between calling you, the person, arrogant and condescending and calling your "words" arrogant and condescending. This was subtle, though. So I wasn't actually calling you as a person that, but tried to point out that your words sounded that way.

 

If I had intended to call you the person arrogant and condescending, then I agree that that would be a bit presumptious since, other than on this board, I don't even know you.

 

My thinking was that so many on this forum know the religion very well and I took your words to be intended to all of us. You have explained that they were intended for one individual who claimed not to understand the gospel.

 

Calling my words arrogant is no different as you still need to understand the intention of the person responsible for them. Since you cannot read my mind, but only read my words, you then have to make assumptions based upon those words. You claim that it was subtle, but still claim the ability to read into those words an attitude of arrogance...how is that possible?

 

How does one call words delivered by a person arrogant without in turn calling the one who delivered them arrogant? I'm not sure how that disconnection can be made?

 

I was writing a reply to a specific post, how is that perceived to be intended to apply to all who read it? Did I address it to everyone or to the poster? If someone to whom the post was not addressed takes it personally, can I be held responsible when it was not directed toward or intended for that person? I don't think that is a fair way to read into my posts.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

There are many reasons to trust Jesus. I can't speak to your situation as I don't know you or your situation. As for me, I have been given sufficient evidence of Jesus' faithfulness.

I'm glad for you. It doesn't bother me much if people get solace in some imaginary friend. I just can't fantasize about the "perfect friend" to help me in life anymore. It just doesn't work anymore. I'm glad for you, however, that you find it working for you. But does it mean that since it works for you, then it must work for me? If I tried it for 30 years and it didn't work, and now in a few years without it everything is great, then why should I go back to trying? I tried. It didn't work.

 

 

Again, I can't speak to your situation as I don't know enough to do so. I'm sorry that you felt this level of disappointment. All I know is that Jesus has been faithful to me and to those whom I know who have trusted in him.

That's good for you. But I hope you can see that since it didn't work for me, I could only come to the conclusion I did.

 

 

I don't know of any who haven't rebelled against Jesus, me included. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you weren't rebellious. Apparently, you have since rebelled if your words here are accurate and I'm understanding them the way that I read them.

Eh. No. You misunderstood that part. I don't feel I have rebelled against any god of any kind since I think the "personal god" concept is false. I can't rebel against something I consider to be non-existent.

 

I also know that those whom I know who have trusted in Jesus (and I don't know you personally, so this is no comment on you) have seen Jesus work in their lives. When you say that you trust the universe, what do you mean by that? Do you trust it to work on your behalf or just to act according to natural laws? If the latter, then I don't know of any Christians who would rebel against that reality, me included.

Exactly. I don't think you are. The Universe is what is. It's not fair. It doesn't work in anyone's favor. It is just what it is. And we can trust it to be exactly that.

[bdp]

'LNC' -

 

'Jesus' - if it ever really lived - is DEAD. Fucking DEAD. It's doing NOTHING in your life - the dead are NOT 'faithful' to anything or anyone. So get off it, shut the fuck up, wake up, get over yourself, whatever else fits. You're a fucking moron and everyone here can see it.

[Mister Pappy]

You're a fucking moron and everyone here can see it.

Yes, he is a moron ... should that piss me off? I am just curious, because it doesn't. It fact LNC's being a moron makes me happy - happy that it is he that is the moron and not I.

[LNC]

Yours sounds much like the man described in Hebrews 6 who tasted of the heavenly gifts and yet turned away. The author was saying that that type of person should have no such security, that is reserved for those following faithfully after the Lord.

 

Yet another version of "you didn't have enough faith." Yawn. Another loophole for your invisible friend.

 

You've misunderstood the Bible. There is no distinction in the Bible about having "enough" faith, the key distinction is the object of one's faith. The person who turned away wasn't trusting Jesus which was evidenced by the fact that he turned away.

 

what is the point in living a moral life as morality is just a man made construct meant to keep the masses in line with some arbitrary standard... Besides, all that morality stuff just panders to some meaningless conditioning that we have that tells us that it is important for some reason when it really isn't.

 

You're doing it wrong. Please stop presenting morality as a false dichotomy (i.e. God-sourced morality versus complete baby-eating pandemonium).

 

People don't need an invisible man threatening them with hellfire to act good. There is plenty of evidence in evolution to show that groups seeking a common good survive. And to assume your version of religious morality is universal is pure conceit.

 

You are confusing the argument. There is a difference between the basis of morality and the living out of morality. I am focused on grounding morality. If morality has no objective grounding, then how one applies his or her system of morality is ultimately up to that person. If there is no objective basis for morality, then ultimately there is no objective morality. Now, if you would care to try to ground morality apart from the existence of God, please go ahead and try. I've been through this discussion before in another thread and no one was able to do so. BTW, contrary to what you and Sam Harris believe, evolution cannot produce objective moral grounding. The problem with that view is that I can claim that evolution has produced a different moral standard for me (or my group) and no one can prove otherwise. In that case, no one would be in a position to tell me that any of my behavior is wrong, just different. The other problem with the evolutionary view is that when moral views differ, there is no basis on which to say that one view is the right view and another the wrong view. The evolutionary view is loaded with problems, but these are just a few of them.

 

Now, you say that my version of morality is pure conceit, but that seems to be a moral judgment that you are not allowed to make on your view. You are making an objective judgment, but you have no objective grounding for you view, so you are now contradicting your view. This is what happens with this view, it cannot be lived out in the real world.

 

LNC

[bdp]

 

 

You've misunderstood the Bible. There is no distinction in the Bible about having "enough" faith, the key distinction is the object of one's faith. The person who turned away wasn't trusting Jesus which was evidenced by the fact that he turned away.

 

 

Fuck. You. Cunt.

 

You 'trust' your dead zombie itinerant cult preacher, I'm quite happy with rational common sense.

 

Oh, and once again his unceasing cant is that we 'don't understand.' Asshole.

[agnosticator]

....I am focused on grounding morality. If morality has no objective grounding, then how one applies his or her system of morality is ultimately up to that person. If there is no objective basis for morality, then ultimately there is no objective morality.

 

Ha! You base human morals upon a non-disprovable idea of a god thought up by subjective humans, who can only know anything subjectively, philosophically speaking. Even the "biblegod" is a subjective grounding for morals. What is objective about Christian morality? What are the biblegod's objective morals? How is a non-human god able to experience human morality (referring to God the Father)? IOW, how can this god experience suffering, pain, sadness, empathy, joy, lust, and love? Supposedly Jesus did, but before his existence god was clueless.

 

You set up a false dichotomy of biblegod morals (whatever that is), and anarchy. Societies make laws that reflect values. That is as objective as you can get. Even you, LNC, follow our society's morality. The supposed objective biblegod morality is just a projection of aspects of the human animal. Morals are moving closer to universals due to the developing "global community". So like it or not, morality is dependent upon human beings and human experience within this earthly environment.

[bdp]

....I am focused on grounding morality. If morality has no objective grounding, then how one applies his or her system of morality is ultimately up to that person. If there is no objective basis for morality, then ultimately there is no objective morality.

 

YES. EXACTLY.

[Guest I Love Dog]

The other problem with the evolutionary view is that when moral views differ, there is no basis on which to say that one view is the right view and another the wrong view.

 

Surely grounding morality is decided by societal groups? When moral views differ, then usually votes are taken to decide. Morals that affect only the individual are decided by the individual. Morals that affect society are decided by that society.

 

If I want to masturbate(something that doesn't affect society)then I decide, contrary to "god's law". If I decide that I want to kill another person then there are societal laws in place to deter me. I don't need Christianity to help me work those things out.

 

If your god and the "good" book were used as a guide for morality then there would be thousands of executions all day long every day throughout every Christian society. Killing adulterers, homosexuals, fortune-tellers, all those of other religions, and anything else that displeased god. If there was any truth in your good book and the existence of your god then your god himself would be killing people all day long, as he did in the bible.

 

"Thou shalt not kill" missed off the words "unless you are god".

[Darklady]

 

 

"Thou shalt not kill" missed off the words "unless you are god".

 

Well said and I would add 'or his representative (ie the church) on earth'.

[Guest Valk0010]

The other problem with the evolutionary view is that when moral views differ, there is no basis on which to say that one view is the right view and another the wrong view.

 

Surely grounding morality is decided by societal groups? When moral views differ, then usually votes are taken to decide. Morals that affect only the individual are decided by the individual. Morals that affect society are decided by that society.

 

If I want to masturbate(something that doesn't affect society)then I decide, contrary to "god's law". If I decide that I want to kill another person then there are societal laws in place to deter me. I don't need Christianity to help me work those things out.

 

If your god and the "good" book were used as a guide for morality then there would be thousands of executions all day long every day throughout every Christian society. Killing adulterers, homosexuals, fortune-tellers, all those of other religions, and anything else that displeased god. If there was any truth in your good book and the existence of your god then your god himself would be killing people all day long, as he did in the bible.

 

"Thou shalt not kill" missed off the words "unless you are god".

Also it depends on what is most the most rationale thing to do given a circumstance(or just simply what is the most rationale thing to do), for example, we know female gentile mutilation is a pointless exercise as well as immoral(partly do to the harm it causes and also the lack of necessity), yet people who think it is necessary think its moral. See its a matter of thinking about reality as well, as what you said dog.

[Phanta]

The other problem with the evolutionary view is that when moral views differ, there is no basis on which to say that one view is the right view and another the wrong view.

 

Surely grounding morality is decided by societal groups? When moral views differ, then usually votes are taken to decide. Morals that affect only the individual are decided by the individual. Morals that affect society are decided by that society.

 

If I want to masturbate(something that doesn't affect society)then I decide, contrary to "god's law". If I decide that I want to kill another person then there are societal laws in place to deter me. I don't need Christianity to help me work those things out.

 

If your god and the "good" book were used as a guide for morality then there would be thousands of executions all day long every day throughout every Christian society. Killing adulterers, homosexuals, fortune-tellers, all those of other religions, and anything else that displeased god. If there was any truth in your good book and the existence of your god then your god himself would be killing people all day long, as he did in the bible.

 

"Thou shalt not kill" missed off the words "unless you are god".

Also it depends on what is most the most rationale thing to do given a circumstance(or just simply what is the most rationale thing to do), for example, we know female gentile mutilation is a pointless exercise as well as immoral(partly do to the harm it causes and also the lack of necessity), yet people who think it is necessary think its moral. See its a matter of thinking about reality as well, as what you said dog.

 

I think you mean "genital".

[Ouroboros]

 

 

"Thou shalt not kill" missed off the words "unless you are god".

 

Well said and I would add 'or his representative (ie the church) on earth'.

And he also missed, "or unless God commands you to kill."

 

None of the genocides in the Old Testament were immoral according to most Christians.

[bdp]

The other problem with the evolutionary view is that when moral views differ, there is no basis on which to say that one view is the right view and another the wrong view.

 

Surely grounding morality is decided by societal groups? When moral views differ, then usually votes are taken to decide. Morals that affect only the individual are decided by the individual. Morals that affect society are decided by that society.

 

If I want to masturbate(something that doesn't affect society)then I decide, contrary to "god's law". If I decide that I want to kill another person then there are societal laws in place to deter me. I don't need Christianity to help me work those things out.

 

If your god and the "good" book were used as a guide for morality then there would be thousands of executions all day long every day throughout every Christian society. Killing adulterers, homosexuals, fortune-tellers, all those of other religions, and anything else that displeased god. If there was any truth in your good book and the existence of your god then your god himself would be killing people all day long, as he did in the bible.

 

"Thou shalt not kill" missed off the words "unless you are god".

Also it depends on what is most the most rationale thing to do given a circumstance(or just simply what is the most rationale thing to do), for example, we know female gentile mutilation is a pointless exercise as well as immoral(partly do to the harm it causes and also the lack of necessity), yet people who think it is necessary think its moral. See its a matter of thinking about reality as well, as what you said dog.

 

I think you mean "genital".

 

Yeah, that's a pointless exercise too...

[Guest Valk0010]

The other problem with the evolutionary view is that when moral views differ, there is no basis on which to say that one view is the right view and another the wrong view.

 

Surely grounding morality is decided by societal groups? When moral views differ, then usually votes are taken to decide. Morals that affect only the individual are decided by the individual. Morals that affect society are decided by that society.

 

If I want to masturbate(something that doesn't affect society)then I decide, contrary to "god's law". If I decide that I want to kill another person then there are societal laws in place to deter me. I don't need Christianity to help me work those things out.

 

If your god and the "good" book were used as a guide for morality then there would be thousands of executions all day long every day throughout every Christian society. Killing adulterers, homosexuals, fortune-tellers, all those of other religions, and anything else that displeased god. If there was any truth in your good book and the existence of your god then your god himself would be killing people all day long, as he did in the bible.

 

"Thou shalt not kill" missed off the words "unless you are god".

Also it depends on what is most the most rationale thing to do given a circumstance(or just simply what is the most rationale thing to do), for example, we know female gentile mutilation is a pointless exercise as well as immoral(partly do to the harm it causes and also the lack of necessity), yet people who think it is necessary think its moral. See its a matter of thinking about reality as well, as what you said dog.

 

I think you mean "genital".

You right, sorry. Late night posting is not always a good idea.

[Phanta]

The other problem with the evolutionary view is that when moral views differ, there is no basis on which to say that one view is the right view and another the wrong view.

 

Surely grounding morality is decided by societal groups? When moral views differ, then usually votes are taken to decide. Morals that affect only the individual are decided by the individual. Morals that affect society are decided by that society.

 

If I want to masturbate(something that doesn't affect society)then I decide, contrary to "god's law". If I decide that I want to kill another person then there are societal laws in place to deter me. I don't need Christianity to help me work those things out.

 

If your god and the "good" book were used as a guide for morality then there would be thousands of executions all day long every day throughout every Christian society. Killing adulterers, homosexuals, fortune-tellers, all those of other religions, and anything else that displeased god. If there was any truth in your good book and the existence of your god then your god himself would be killing people all day long, as he did in the bible.

 

"Thou shalt not kill" missed off the words "unless you are god".

Also it depends on what is most the most rationale thing to do given a circumstance(or just simply what is the most rationale thing to do), for example, we know female gentile mutilation is a pointless exercise as well as immoral(partly do to the harm it causes and also the lack of necessity), yet people who think it is necessary think its moral. See its a matter of thinking about reality as well, as what you said dog.

 

I think you mean "genital".

You right, sorry. Late night posting is not always a good idea.

 

It seemed important to clarify in the context of this particular web site, where the word "gentile" actually comes up a fair amount.